Louisa Wall highlighted the fact that “same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero”, in her First Reading speech (ref. 1) in parliament in support of her private member’s bill – the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. She put forward the erroneous argument that because “the civil and social institution of marriage” had [allegedly] “changed dramatically” over the period “pre-dat[ing] government and Christianity” and leading up to the present-day, as illustrated by the legalisation of homosexual marriage in Rome in the time of Nero, New Zealand MPs should therefore support her bill and embrace homosexual marriage. Then she made the claim that for opponents of her bill to “even raise such concerns” as “polygamy, bigamy, bestiality and incest … within the context of discussion about marriage equality” [i.e. homosexual “marriage”] was “insulting” to her and those championing her bill, because such practices constituted “criminal offences” under current NZ law.

One MP who voted in support of her bill at its first and second readings was National MP the Hon. Maurice Williamson. Never one to be outdone in espousing a libertarian argument he said, “I don’t care if someone wants to marry their dog as long as they don’t do it on the front lawn” (ref. 2). Such flippancy from a bill supporter – involving an ‘argument’ based on reductio ad absurdum – and relying on the ‘linking’ of homosexual sex/”marriage” with bestiality – is illustrative of the libertarian attitude of a number of other MPs supporting the bill. For them, limiting marriage to one man and one woman makes little sense, adults should be entitled in their view to form whatever intimate relationships they want involving sexual activity, and have them recognised in law.

Some MPs opposing the bill have highlighted polygamy, bigamy etc, just as Williamson has done with bestiality, not to be flippant like him, but rather to seek to raise the serious and genuine question as to where a line should be drawn, if at all, to limit the definition of marriage. Williamson just doesn’t seem to care where the line should be drawn, as long as consenting adults confine their activities to the privacy of their own homes. Such an attitude disregards, or at best makes light of serious considerations of the relationship between adults and their offspring and/or adoptive children. It also takes no account of public health issues around sexual promiscuity and/or unsafe sex practices.

For opponents of the bill, who do care, the line starts and finishes with the one man – one woman definition of marriage. There are clearly no reasonable grounds for claiming that their references to bigamy and polygamy in the course of advancing their case against the bill, are “insulting” as Louisa Wall claims. Wall’s supporters regularly vilify the bill’s opponents as “homophobes”, “gay-bashers” and “gay-haters”. Then employing the “victim – mentality syndrome” seek to shut down all legitimate debate over the bill, by claiming that opponents are “insulting” them, when in fact the latter are involved in legitimate debate involving reasoned arguments.

Over 70 MPs have now been persuaded by the types of banal and perverse arguments Louisa Wall has used (above) to support her bill that if passed would bring New Zealand into line with homosexual ‘marriage’ practices legalised under Nero in Rome.

The SPCS has petitioned the Attorney-General, Hon. Chris Finlayson, to fulfil his legal and moral obligations to report to Parliament forthwith under s. 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BOR), on ALL aspects of Labour MP Louisa Wall’s legally flawed Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill that in any way breach BOR in terms of its amendments to the Marriage Act 1955. SPCS contends that the bill blatantly discriminates against persons based on their “married status” and “religious belief” and furthermore, because its concept of “same-sex marriage” (SSM) constitutes an oxymoron *, parliament must reject the bill. See: http://www.spcs.org.nz/2013/open-petition-to-attorney-general-to-strike-down-marriage-definition-of-marriage-amendment-bill/

The Government Administration Committee has significantly altered the bill since it was introduced to parliament, so that it now includes dozens of “Consequential Amendments” (under Schedule 2, Part 1) to 14 separate Acts of Parliament – involving the replacement the terms “husband” and “wife” with “spouse”; “husband and wife” with “spouses” or “married couple”; and “husband or wife” with “either spouses”. By amending the Marriage Act so that “marriage”, currently restricted to couples comprising a male and female, includes same-sex couples too, it seeks to radically redefine (in effect) the terms “spouse” and “married couple” to include SSM, thereby rendering the traditional terms “husband” and “wife” and “spouse” and “married couple” (based on opposite sexes), meaningless in law. For example, ss. 24(3) and 366(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 (1961 No 43) currently state:

24 Compulsion

(3) Where a woman who is married or in a civil union commits an offence, the fact that her husband or civil union partner was present at the commission of the offence does not of itself raise a presumption of compulsion.

366 Comment on failure to give evidence

(1)[Repealed]

(2)Where a person charged with an offence refrains from calling his wife or her husband, as the case may be, as a witness, no comment adverse to the person charged shall be made thereon.

The Bill (see Schedule 2), if passed, will replace “husband” with “spouse” in s. 24, so that the status of a married (heterosexual) woman’s true spouse is no longer referred to as a “husband” in law, but rather as a ‘spouse’ – a term redefined to include both individuals involved in any same-sex. The distinctive and unique meaning of the terms “husband”, “wife” and “spouses” (as involving opposite sexes in a traditional marriage union) is under direct attack and made meaningless.

If passed, the bill will replace “his wife or her husband” with “his or her husband or wife” in s. 366(2). This additional negation of the meaning of “husband” and “wife” renders the terms meaningless, because it would define in effect, each “married” same-sex member in SSM as either a “husband” or “wife” in law. This is an absurdity, and a fundamental attack on those persons who have become “husband” and “wife” under the Marriage Act 1955. This blatant manipulation and corruption of language by a redefiniton of the status of those married under the Principle Act, constitutes discrimination against those having married status under this Act. It constitutes a serious breach of their human rights under s. 19 of BOR (see s. 21 (1)(b)(ii) Human Rights Act 1993) to be free from discrimination. Additionally, it discriminates against all those who hold religious beliefs that “marriage” involves only a man (husband) and a woman (wife).

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”) (Contact spcs.org@gmail.com)

(*Oxymoron: A figure of speech in which incongruous or seemingly contradictory terms appear side by side)

A poll of New Zealanders has found that only 47% now believe that Parliament should change the definition of marriage, and 43% believe that civil unions are sufficient for same sex couples. The poll also found strong support for laws protecting celebrants, churches and schools if the law is still pushed through. Almost half of NZ’ers believe there should be a Referendum on the issue.

In the poll of 1,000 people undertaken by Curia Market Research this month, respondents were asked “In 2004, Parliament legislated to allow same sex couples to register a civil union, amending over 150 pieces of legislation to give legal rights and recognition to same-sex couples. Do you think Parliament should change the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry, or do you think civil unions are sufficient for same sex couples?”

Only 47% said that Parliament should change the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry and 43% said they believed civil unions were sufficient for same sex couples.

49% of respondents said that any changes to the Marriage Act should be subject to a binding referendum, with 41% opposed. Labour supporters were most in favour of a Referendum.

“It is significant that as the debate on redefining marriage has continued, the support for Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill has steadily dropped. We have got past the slogans of ‘marriage equality’ and ‘discrimination’ and the debate is now centered around the real purpose and role of marriage and the fact that there is actually no discrimination in the law currently,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, and the Protect Marriage campaign.

The poll also found strong support for protecting those who disagree with same-sex ‘marriage’ if it is redefined:

80% of respondents think marriage celebrants should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings if they go against their personal convictions.

73% of respondents believe churches and other places of faith should not be required to allow same-sex marriages in their buildings.

55% of respondents believe faith-based schools should not be required to teach that same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage of a man and a woman, with 33% saying they should.

53% oppose and 37% support requiring individual teachers in state schools to teach same-sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage if it goes against their personal beliefs.

Regarding adoption by same-sex couples, respondents were asked“Should families where there is both a mum and a dad have priority for the adoption of babies and children?”,52% of respondents said that families with both a mum and a dad should have priority for adoptions, with 38% saying they shouldn’t. There was a significant difference by gender with women split almost equally and men strongly in favour of priority for families with a mum and dad. National voters were most in favour of giving priority to heterosexual couples (60%).

“Despite the Select Committee arrogantly riding rough-shod over the overwhelming number of submissions in an attempt to ram this bill through and get it off the political agenda, this latest poll shows that the politicians simply do not have the mandate to change such a major cultural and social institution,” says Mr McCoskrie. “The politicians need to pause, and take a breath.”

The poll was carried out during February and has a margin of error of 3.2%.